2 ms·
I disagree. Im sure fossil designers don’t want the whole thing to break if the wiki breaks, but have you tested it? I don’t know what dependencies it has or ho
by prepend 3y ago
I disagree. Im sure fossil designers don’t want the whole thing to break if the wiki breaks, but have you tested it? I don’t know what dependencies it has or how well it’s designed. Im not worried about it being turned off. I’m worried about a bug in the wiki portion killing the “important” version.
But my argument is that I don’t want my important thing I care about doing unimportant things I don’t care about.
I love wikis and I love coffee. But I don’t want to have to install a wiki just to use source control.
I love used enough systems where stuff breaks because of a particular feature I didn’t know about and certainly don’t want (atlassian) to be wary of things.
And while the car / coffee maker allegory is funny, I wouldn’t be surprised if a car does break in the near future because some dumb feature can’t phone home and validate. Or the battery died from some process that kept running and was completely unnecessary.
- remram 3y agoDo you use all of Git's features? Bundles, emailing, git-daemon? Submodules? I wonder if you were aware that git contains an IMAP client.
- mgaunard 3y agogit can send and receive data using multiple protocols; email is just one of them.
- polotics 3y agoThis is mistaking the teams that design cars and most software, for the team that designs SQLite and Fossil. Most software development shops are low quality dysfunctional politics-ridden heavily coupled messes using tools designed for a use-case that is only vaguely similar to the tasks at hand. For example: git, Jira, Confluence, GitHub... In such an environment having one tool that does everything is a recipe for disaster: everyone knows all tools are shoddy and/or misapplied, and can only barely do their own job, they should not touch any other task. SQLite and Fossil are in a completely different world of hard-core quality focus...